Free Speech and Inflammatory Rhetoric

[WinePusher]

With the recent tragedy in Tuscon Arizona, many on the left have been blaming this on conservatives and their supposed "inflammatory rhetoric." Conservative leaders such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann, Sharon Angle and others have been their primary targets. They have focused particular attention on Palins bullet map and the call to use "second amendment remedies" by Sharon Angle.

But let's look a little closer at this. The DNC used a bullet map similar to Palin, people on the left like Ed Schultz and Mike Malloy have called for the death of some presidents and conservative leaders, a documentary was made about killing Bush by a leftist, and Obama himself has made inflammatory remarks with violent connotations. The left also was so concerned about jumping to conclusions about Fort Hood, but jumps to conclusions about the political affiliations of this psychopath in the absense of evidence.

1) Are second amendment remedies to problems ever justified? Remember that the point of the 2nd amendment was to combat a tyrannical government.

2) Are conservatives to blame for this?

3) Are liberals being hypocrties by jumping to conclusions over this, and not jumping to conclusions over Fort Hood. Are they also being hypocrites for charging conservatives with violent and inflammatory rhetoric while leaving their own ranks uncondemned?

[Goat]

If you have been reading my posts you should know I am no fan of any media, I am suspicious of anything that is motivated by the love of money. I simply think that the core values of FOX, whether motivated by money or not are more ethical and moral than the leftist sites, whom by default tend to be less moral and ethical (when viewed by my perspective), the same way the left influenced sites seem to be more to your liking, morally or ethically. So Ms Maddox being human has lied, and its the statement where you say that MS Maddox has never lied etc that I took issue with. Never is an expansive concept! You have a habit of attempting to redirect the issues etc by bringing FOX, the local dog catcher, what we had for dinner last night etc into the fray. (ha ha just a little levity to demonstrate how I feel about your claims).


rs

Please point out the lie that Ms Maddox has done as part of her professional journalism. If you can, please do. If not, please retract this statement as not able to be supported.

[East of Eden]

If you have been reading my posts you should know I am no fan of any media, I am suspicious of anything that is motivated by the love of money. I simply think that the core values of FOX, whether motivated by money or not are more ethical and moral than the leftist sites, whom by default tend to be less moral and ethical (when viewed by my perspective), the same way the left influenced sites seem to be more to your liking, morally or ethically. So Ms Maddox being human has lied, and its the statement where you say that MS Maddox has never lied etc that I took issue with. Never is an expansive concept! You have a habit of attempting to redirect the issues etc by bringing FOX, the local dog catcher, what we had for dinner last night etc into the fray. (ha ha just a little levity to demonstrate how I feel about your claims).


rs

Please point out the lie that Ms Maddox has done as part of her professional journalism. If you can, please do. If not, please retract this statement as not able to be supported.

[East of Eden]

If you have been reading my posts you should know I am no fan of any media, I am suspicious of anything that is motivated by the love of money. I simply think that the core values of FOX, whether motivated by money or not are more ethical and moral than the leftist sites, whom by default tend to be less moral and ethical (when viewed by my perspective), the same way the left influenced sites seem to be more to your liking, morally or ethically. So Ms Maddox being human has lied, and its the statement where you say that MS Maddox has never lied etc that I took issue with. Never is an expansive concept! You have a habit of attempting to redirect the issues etc by bringing FOX, the local dog catcher, what we had for dinner last night etc into the fray. (ha ha just a little levity to demonstrate how I feel about your claims).


rs

Please point out the lie that Ms Maddox has done as part of her professional journalism. If you can, please do. If not, please retract this statement as not able to be supported.

I presume you mean Maddow. Do a Google search on Rachel Maddow lies and you'll find a bunch. Here's one:

http://constantlyinthedarkness.blogspot ... -your.html

[micatala]

If you have been reading my posts you should know I am no fan of any media, I am suspicious of anything that is motivated by the love of money. I simply think that the core values of FOX, whether motivated by money or not are more ethical and moral than the leftist sites, whom by default tend to be less moral and ethical (when viewed by my perspective), the same way the left influenced sites seem to be more to your liking, morally or ethically. So Ms Maddox being human has lied, and its the statement where you say that MS Maddox has never lied etc that I took issue with. Never is an expansive concept! You have a habit of attempting to redirect the issues etc by bringing FOX, the local dog catcher, what we had for dinner last night etc into the fray. (ha ha just a little levity to demonstrate how I feel about your claims).


rs

Please point out the lie that Ms Maddox has done as part of her professional journalism. If you can, please do. If not, please retract this statement as not able to be supported.

I presume you mean Maddow. Do a Google search on Rachel Maddow lies and you'll find a bunch. Here's one:

http://constantlyinthedarkness.blogspot ... -your.html

This is not a lie. I would count it as equivocation. The blogger states their opinion that what is in the bill does not count as tort reform. However, that is an opinion, not a fact. Maddow counts what is in the bill as tort reform. I would agree, it is not specifically what the Republicans wanted for tort reform, but it is also incorrect to say there is nothing that could be considered tort reform in the bill.

I would count this as spin. However, I would note there are other things that were in the bill that Republicans had previously supported, including the individual mandates.

I would note that Maddow does not misrepresent the facts. When I have accused FOX of lieing, it is for misrepresenting the facts.

I would allow she gives what I would call politically motivated characterization of the facts.



Both FOX and MSNBC engage in these types of politically motivated or partisan characterizations. One could say such characterizations are inaccurate. It is possible that these mischaracterizations involve errors of fact, but that does not seem to be the case with Maddow here.


In fact, the blogger here is arguably engaging in more spin than Maddow in claiming she is "lying straight to your face."



However, I will give you that she is equivocating, and that she is not giving a total fair picture of the situation. The "tort reform" she is referring to is not really the same "tort reform" that Republicans have specifically asked for.


But still not an out and out lie.

[micatala]

Grumpy also KNOWS that the challenge for you or Ae to come up with a single instance of Racheal Maddow telling a lie or even making an honest mistake that she did not later correct has not been met The two truly pitiful attempts seems to have shown you your error, you haven't addressed it again. So, no, all reporters do not lie despite their biases, they do not make things up to further their political interests, but the ones at Fox certainly do, it has been documented in this thread.

Allow me to assist Mr. Winepusher's ? Ms Maddow lies just as well as all of the paid news employee's. I don't fully trust any of them, and that is the reason I take all of them 'in aggregate' and attempt to extrapolate 'average' claims etc, then form my own opinions. Additionally, I attempt to source via nontraditional methods news about events etc that are very important to me. I use shortwave and satt. radio for Islamic and other middle east news/issues for example.

Lastly I will comment about a few of Maddows mis-truths. The proof needed to prove Grumpys claims inaccurate were as close as the net and a search engine. I retained and pasted the Google descriptive paragraph to aid the potential reader in deciding if he or she wants to link to the site;

Rachel Maddow lies: Fox had absolutely nothing to do with the ...
Jul 26, 2010 ... Fox reports that Shirley Sherrod has already resigned, yet Rachel Maddow uses them as evidence that she resigned because of Fox News.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/rachel-mad ... ey-sherrod

rs

And a web site that is titled 'I hate the media' is a valid site for unbiased information? WOW. Amazing. Particularly when they keep on blathering about 'Liberal bias'.

Looking at the 'articles' it presents, it is nothing but a neocon hate site.

Want to address the article itself? The fact is Sherrod resigned before FOX mentioned it, which makes Maddow a liar by blaming FOX for the resignation.

First, Maddow blames both FOX and Breitbart, not just FOX.

Second, it is very clear from the entirety of the evidence that pressure was put on Sharrod because at least some in the Obama Administration, including Vilsack, believed, having seen what Breitbart posted, and that it was going to be on FOX that evening, that they had a major problem on their hands.

Did the Administration jump the gun? Yes. They made, and later admitted they made a huge mistake. They based their actions on the assumption that the Breitbart video gave an accurate representation, and the assumption that FOX would make hay out of it.

Their first assumption was, of course, wrong.

Their second assumption was absolutely right, and most of the video segment of Maddow shows exactly that.


So, was it a lie to for Maddow to assign at least some blame for this to FOX? I would say no. Their documented history of untruth and inflammatory reporting certainly did play a role in how USDA reacted. Now, I would agree FOX is not totally to blame for Vilsack jumping the gun, but they ARE responsible for their pattern of reporting.

ANd it is very, very, very, very clear that their reporting in this case was highly inaccurate and dishonest on numerous fronts as documented by Maddow. Thus, the Administration was absolutely justified, based on this evidence and past evidence, for believing FOX would make this into a hugely negative story about the Administration. That is exactly what FOX did, and they absolutely lied repeatedly in doing so.

Now, to be fair to FOX, it is not their fault that Vilsack did not do his due diligence before taking action.

BUt let's be clear, if he had not taken action, would FOX's coverage been any different? I think we can clearly say that, if anything, it would have been more negative. We would have heard about Obama "protecing one of his own" and "playing racial favorites," etc., etc., because that charge had been made previously and this would play into that narrative. If they had waited, then we would have been told that they only fired her because of the media storm they had created. After all, that is just what they did with the ACORN controversy.

Given all of this, it was not totally unreasonable for the Administration to jump the gun. It made absolute tactical sense at the time.


The lesson for the Administration in this is that they should basically ignore what FOX reports because:

1) It has a very good chance of being inaccurate, even totally and utterly wrong, as in this case.

2) FOX will always spin the events in the most negative way possible for you anyway, so it is useless to try and get out in front of the story, especially if that requires acting hastily and based on incomplete information.



It is fair to say that if we had not had a long standing pattern of dishonest and inflammatory reporting by FOX (and others like Breitbart) that had been shown to have negative political effects, then this would not have happened. To the extent that FOX is responsible for the media and political environment they have contributed to creating, then it is absolutely justifiable to consider them partially to blame for what happened to Mrs. Sharrod.


However, the Administration also gets their fair share of blame for giving that environment too much weight and acting hastily. In the long run, despite the fact that such tactics have had negative effects on the Democrats, it is better to ignore them or at least respond after having done due diligence and appropriate reflection.

[East of Eden]

If you have been reading my posts you should know I am no fan of any media, I am suspicious of anything that is motivated by the love of money. I simply think that the core values of FOX, whether motivated by money or not are more ethical and moral than the leftist sites, whom by default tend to be less moral and ethical (when viewed by my perspective), the same way the left influenced sites seem to be more to your liking, morally or ethically. So Ms Maddox being human has lied, and its the statement where you say that MS Maddox has never lied etc that I took issue with. Never is an expansive concept! You have a habit of attempting to redirect the issues etc by bringing FOX, the local dog catcher, what we had for dinner last night etc into the fray. (ha ha just a little levity to demonstrate how I feel about your claims).


rs

Please point out the lie that Ms Maddox has done as part of her professional journalism. If you can, please do. If not, please retract this statement as not able to be supported.

I presume you mean Maddow. Do a Google search on Rachel Maddow lies and you'll find a bunch. Here's one:

http://constantlyinthedarkness.blogspot ... -your.html

This is not a lie. I would count it as equivocation. The blogger states their opinion that what is in the bill does not count as tort reform. However, that is an opinion, not a fact. Maddow counts what is in the bill as tort reform. I would agree, it is not specifically what the Republicans wanted for tort reform, but it is also incorrect to say there is nothing that could be considered tort reform in the bill.

I would count this as spin. However, I would note there are other things that were in the bill that Republicans had previously supported, including the individual mandates.

I would note that Maddow does not misrepresent the facts. When I have accused FOX of lieing, it is for misrepresenting the facts.

I would allow she gives what I would call politically motivated characterization of the facts.



Both FOX and MSNBC engage in these types of politically motivated or partisan characterizations. One could say such characterizations are inaccurate. It is possible that these mischaracterizations involve errors of fact, but that does not seem to be the case with Maddow here.


In fact, the blogger here is arguably engaging in more spin than Maddow in claiming she is "lying straight to your face."



However, I will give you that she is equivocating, and that she is not giving a total fair picture of the situation. The "tort reform" she is referring to is not really the same "tort reform" that Republicans have specifically asked for.


But still not an out and out lie.

I would agree with you if you are saying this is spin or equivocation and not a lie. It would be nice if all here would drop the 'lie' charge directed at various media. I doubt if anyone knowingly lies, especially in front of a national audience. What I see going on here is someone makes a statement such as 'tax cuts do/do not help the economy' and whoever has a different opinion calls it a lie.

I would say Maddow is biased towards the left, and no doubt some would say that about FOX. How about all media just come out and admit which way they lean? There's no crime in that.

[Grumpy]

East of Eden

It would be nice if all here would drop the 'lie' charge directed at various media.

It would be much nicer if we could, but Fox News has been caught in too many episodes of presenting things like the Breibart video we just discussed as if they were facts. And they rarely retract those things or appologize for the damage they have done. We could agree to stop calling them lies, there are other words that mean the same thing. But wouldn't that be like calling a tax increase a revenue enhancement?

I doubt if anyone knowingly lies, especially in front of a national audience.

Breibart received a huge audience exposure for his altered videos. Breibart conciously and deliberately lied in front of a national audience.

And what do we call it when, say, Hannity spouts facts, figures and statements we KNOW to be way off base(say the whole network claiming Obama raised our taxes is one)? If he is uninformed you would think he would correct himself and it would be a one time thing. But it isn't just the once, the Echo Chamber repeats the falsehood that Obama raised our taxes repeatedly*. So, if it is not deliberate it can only be stupidity, and if a whole network is made up of complete morons we're doomed anyway.

*In fact I will be surprised if it isn't repeated here on this thread by people Hannity has convinced of the...mendacity.

What I see going on here is someone makes a statement such as 'tax cuts do/do not help the economy' and whoever has a different opinion calls it a lie.

That is an opinion you hold DESPITE the facts, not because of them, then. But what is "The president attended a madrassa", is that an opinion or is it spin? It is neither it is...an invention, spread on air by Fox(echo)prior to the 2008 election to influence the outcome of that election.

Let's see, an invention spread as truth to influence or fool, appealing to the racial or religious biases as well.

When I say Racheal Maddow does not lie, I mean she does not do this very thing. Fox does it continuously. There is a difference in integrity between Fox, who has none, and Racheal, who has a lot.

So, will Glenn Beck be on Fox on March 7?

Grumpy

[micatala]

If you have been reading my posts you should know I am no fan of any media, I am suspicious of anything that is motivated by the love of money. I simply think that the core values of FOX, whether motivated by money or not are more ethical and moral than the leftist sites, whom by default tend to be less moral and ethical (when viewed by my perspective), the same way the left influenced sites seem to be more to your liking, morally or ethically. So Ms Maddox being human has lied, and its the statement where you say that MS Maddox has never lied etc that I took issue with. Never is an expansive concept! You have a habit of attempting to redirect the issues etc by bringing FOX, the local dog catcher, what we had for dinner last night etc into the fray. (ha ha just a little levity to demonstrate how I feel about your claims).


rs

Please point out the lie that Ms Maddox has done as part of her professional journalism. If you can, please do. If not, please retract this statement as not able to be supported.

I presume you mean Maddow. Do a Google search on Rachel Maddow lies and you'll find a bunch. Here's one:

http://constantlyinthedarkness.blogspot ... -your.html

This is not a lie. I would count it as equivocation. The blogger states their opinion that what is in the bill does not count as tort reform. However, that is an opinion, not a fact. Maddow counts what is in the bill as tort reform. I would agree, it is not specifically what the Republicans wanted for tort reform, but it is also incorrect to say there is nothing that could be considered tort reform in the bill.

I would count this as spin. However, I would note there are other things that were in the bill that Republicans had previously supported, including the individual mandates.

I would note that Maddow does not misrepresent the facts. When I have accused FOX of lieing, it is for misrepresenting the facts.

I would allow she gives what I would call politically motivated characterization of the facts.



Both FOX and MSNBC engage in these types of politically motivated or partisan characterizations. One could say such characterizations are inaccurate. It is possible that these mischaracterizations involve errors of fact, but that does not seem to be the case with Maddow here.


In fact, the blogger here is arguably engaging in more spin than Maddow in claiming she is "lying straight to your face."



However, I will give you that she is equivocating, and that she is not giving a total fair picture of the situation. The "tort reform" she is referring to is not really the same "tort reform" that Republicans have specifically asked for.


But still not an out and out lie.

I would agree with you if you are saying this is spin or equivocation and not a lie. It would be nice if all here would drop the 'lie' charge directed at various media. I doubt if anyone knowingly lies, especially in front of a national audience.

I would disagree, although I will admit one cannot typically read into people's minds to determine if they are knowingly lieing. I do think there are some media people who knowingly lie. When Bill O'Reilly said that no one on FOX ever talked about people going to jail because they didn't buy health care, that was definitely not true, and I find it incomprehensible that he did not know it was false given at least one person on his own show said it.

I would agree the word lie probably gets way overused in media settings, and probably is used more than it should be on this forum. I'll admit I have used it, although I try to simply use the phraseology "false statement" instead of lie.

What I see going on here is someone makes a statement such as 'tax cuts do/do not help the economy' and whoever has a different opinion calls it a lie.

I would agree that it often happens that people label differences of opinions as lies, and that that is not appropriate. I would definitely reserve the word "lie" for statements that are demonstrably counter to the facts. I would also say there are gray areas.

For example, if someone says Obama is a radical or Palin is extreme, I would not label those statements as false or as lies. I might criticize the use of the word if the person seems to be applying it selectively or inconsistently.

However, if someone says "the Health care bill contains death panels," I would view that as factually false. However much the person making the statement might want to equivocate on the meaning of "death panels," the clear implication is that the bill includes a government panel that is deciding who lives and who dies. To say anything like this is in the bill is simply factually incorrect.

I would say Maddow is biased towards the left, and no doubt some would say that about FOX. How about all media just come out and admit which way they lean? There's no crime in that.

I would absolutely agree Maddow is biased towards the left, as is prettty much everyone on MSNBC. Maddow and at least some of the others freely admit as much. FOX is biased to the right. I have no beef with either of those realities. I do find FOX's "we report, you decide" moniker somewhat disingenuous, and their claims to be "fair and balanced" ridiculous. I would say some of their hosts, like Brett Baer, are usually fair and balanced, but during most hours of the day, you are not getting fair and balanced on FOX. Again, that happens on MSNBC too and I am fine with that, but at least MSNBC doesn't pretend otherwise.

If FOX did two things, I would really have no problem with them at all.

1) Avoid making statements that are blatantly false.

2) Admit they are providing news from a conservative view point and stop claiming to be fair and balanced unless they actually are going to be fair and balanced.

For me, 1) is much more of an issue than 2), which I don't expect would ever happen as those slogans are marketing ploys and they are going to get used as long as FOX thinks they are working. I am willing to give those some leeway because they are marketing ploys and subjective statements.

I can even live with a third issue, namely skewing the characterization of events and people by selective use of evidence and emphasizing only some stories or some parts of stories.

Certainly MSNBC does a lot of that when they try to pick out the most extreme people in the Tea Party or the Republicans to mock and then make the implication that Tea Partiers or all Republicans in general are like these most extreme examples. O'Reilly likes to pick on the loony left and his favorite pinheads of the day.

In both cases, the people they pick on often deserve the criticism, even if they really don't deserve the blatant personal mockery. Making fun of George Bush's occasional challenges with the spoken word is pointless and petty. Criticizing George Bush on his policies is fair game.


I would certainly admit Maddow occasionally goes off into personal comments, although much less so than Olbermann or Schultz. I even agree with Winepusher that her attempts at humor often fall short, or are beaten like a dead horse. I freely admit she is very biased towards the left.

However, none of those things are the same as being factually wrong. I'll grant that the examples you have brought up are at least examples of her bias leading to a depiction of the situation that is not totally accurate. I still don't think they rise to the level of falsehood, and certainly nowhere near the level of "global warming is a hoax" or "Sharrod in her role as USDA offical intentionally withheld help she should have given to a white farmer" or "Obama wants to kill your grandmother."

[East of Eden]

It would be much nicer if we could, but Fox News has been caught in too many episodes of presenting things like the Breibart video we just discussed as if they were facts. And they rarely retract those things or appologize for the damage they have done. We could agree to stop calling them lies, there are other words that mean the same thing.

Why not use the term false statement? You have no way of knowing whether someone knowingly lies, and most of what you call lies are very debatable.

And what do we call it when, say, Hannity spouts facts, figures and statements we KNOW to be way off base(say the whole network claiming Obama raised our taxes is one)?

Obama has raised some taxes, and did his darndest to have the Bush rates expire. There are a bunch of hidden tax increases under Obamacare, such as the out of pocket medical expense deductability going up from 7% to 10%. Call if what you will, but that will result in a family paying more taxes, including those making under $250K.

http://factcheck.org/2011/02/obamas-tax-tale/

That is an opinion you hold DESPITE the facts, not because of them, then.

What are you talking about? I used as an example tax cuts do OR do not help the ecnoomy.

But what is "The president attended a madrassa", is that an opinion or is it spin? It is neither it is...an invention, spread on air by Fox(echo)prior to the 2008 election to influence the outcome of that election.

Cite? Is it possible it was a false statement unknowingly made? I don't hear anyone saying it now. Does it upset you that Dan Rather and CBS made up stuff about Bush in an attempt to influence the election?

http://www.mediaresearch.org/profiles/rather/crisis.asp

Let's see, an invention spread as truth to influence or fool, appealing to the racial or religious biases as well.

Baloney, you have no reason to say that.

When I say Racheal Maddow does not lie, I mean she does not do this very thing. Fox does it continuously. There is a difference in integrity between Fox, who has none, and Racheal, who has a lot.

Your opinion, not fact. You've been shown a bunch of Maddow false statements.

So, will Glenn Beck be on Fox on March 7?

What does that have to do with anything? I don't watch him.

The left who whines about FOX say nothing about the vicious treatment given Sarah Palin, which is really unprecedented.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/ ... palin.html

[Grumpy]

East of Eden

Why not use the term false statement? You have no way of knowing whether someone knowingly lies, and most of what you call lies are very debatable.

It's really hard to think someone just keeps repeating the same statement over and over WITHOUT intent, isn't it. A lie is a false statement with intent, without intent you could argue for error, errors should be corrected and not repeated. The knowing comes with observing their behavior. So, which is it, intent or inability to ever learn anything? Some explanation for the continued repitition of false information, even after the falseness has been exposed, is needed. There must be a word for that...

Obama has raised some taxes

He had not up to the time the...prevarication occurred. In fact, until the healthcare bill he had lowered taxes for those two years. Just a fact. About one third of the stimulus was tax cuts.

What are you talking about? I used as an example tax cuts do OR do not help the ecnoomy.

And you claimed that all the evidence supported your position. I do not know why or where you got that information from, but the facts say otherwise. I also think you claimed job numbers for Bush many times the actual number created as evidence, repeatedly. So the opinion you were pushing is not supported by the facts.

Cite? Is it possible it was a false statement unknowingly made? I don't hear anyone saying it now.

Timeline

http://mediamatters.org/research/200701300007

Doocy



CNN busts Fox.

Does it upset you that Dan Rather and CBS made up stuff about Bush in an attempt to influence the election?

Yes, but if the hosts on Fox were held to the standard he was they would just have to turn off the lights over there.

Grumpy